Let’s talk about BBC

[AuroraSaab]

My impression is you think the BBC shouldn't be held to higher standards than other outlets, despite being public funded and having a unique historical position. Otherwise what does it matter what other outlets are doing. The changes we are already seeing suggest they acknowledge their shortcomings.


View: https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1988652854878335455

 

[matticus]

My impression is you think the BBC shouldn't be held to higher standards than other outlets, despite being public funded and having a unique historical position. Otherwise what does it matter what other outlets are doing. The changes we are already seeing suggest they acknowledge their shortcomings.

A better reading of my view:
I think their standards are plenty high enough. I have my criticisms of them, but I've seen their ups-and-downs for many decades. Nothing in the UK comes close, and the rest of the Anglosphere is a bin-fire by comparison. The Trump speech thing? A fúck-up; but held against the background of their vast news output, it's nothing. Do some googling, then tell me how many hours or words of stuff they put out annually.

They have always been attacked and criticised - just like the Gov, the Church, and other parts of the "establishment" . This is so normal ( and perhaps correct?) that I just ignore it (and in many cases agree with bits of!). Up to a point ...

What we have now is fake rage. Don't you find it interesting that 99% of noisy voices are those who can gain from BBC losses?

 

[AuroraSaab]

If you haven't noticed the shortcomings in their reporting of women's rights that might be because you have less interest in it than some of us. That doesn't mean it hasn't occurred, it just means you haven't noticed.

A lot of the people pointing this out are BBC supporters and viewers. They don't want the BBC to be defunded, they want more balanced reporting. Characterising this as fake rage because other parties are taking it as an opportunity to bash the BBC is very dismissive.

 

[matticus]

If you haven't noticed the shortcomings in their reporting of women's rights that might be because you have less interest in it than some of us. That doesn't mean it hasn't occurred, it just means you haven't noticed.

I haven't commented on the specifics of their trans womens rights coverage for the same reason I haven't posted since the early days in the NACA Gender Thread. (I think my views were reasonably clear from my posts there. It should be obvious why I - and I suspect a few others - stopped posting there.)

It's just one facet of BBC News. If you hitch your complaints to the same wagon containing criticism of bias over Gaza, Leftie bias, Right-wing bias ... et al, it looks to me (honestly) like you severely weaken your case.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So basically women can't complain about BBC coverage of women's rights issues because if they do that might associate them with other parties (that you disapprove of) who are complaining about other different stuff?
That doesn't sound fair at all.

 

[Goonerobes]

Normally I'm so lazy, I wait for other people to post updates, but as I'm here :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c874nw4g2zzo
BBC apologises to Trump over Panorama edit but refuses to pay compensation

So in the last 24 hours alone not only have they apologised to President Trump, they've also apologised to Rupert Lowe and now they have to apologise to President Trump again because Newsnight also doctored a video!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/13/bbc-doctored-trump-speech-second-time-newsnight/

 

[AndyRM]

Yeah. F*ck the BBC. State sponsored media fascists the lot of them.

Personally I hate them because they failed to accurately properly declare their agenda about frogs versus toads one time.

 

[C R]

I haven't commented on the specifics of their trans womens rights coverage for the same reason I haven't posted since the early days in the NACA Gender Thread. (I think my views were reasonably clear from my posts there. It should be obvious why I - and I suspect a few others - stopped posting there.)

It's just one facet of BBC News. If you hitch your complaints to the same wagon containing criticism of bias over Gaza, Leftie bias, Right-wing bias ... et al, it looks to me (honestly) like you severely weaken your case.

The particular canard you are responding to has already been shot down by BBC reporters, as already posted further up in this thread. That will not stop people trying to keep flogging it, though it is an ex canard.

Apologies in advance for the mixed literary devices.

 

[briantrumpet]

Yeah. F*ck the BBC. State sponsored media fascists the lot of them.

Personally I hate them because they failed to accurately properly declare their agenda about frogs versus toads one time.

And it's so tiresome how they admit mistakes and publish corrections.

At least the Telegraph puts up a fight about issuing corrections... over 100 of them in 2025.

https://writesbright.substack.com/p...risy?r=q37nz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

 

[C R]

And it's so tiresome how they admit mistakes and publish corrections.

At least the Telegraph puts up a fight abou t issuing corrections... over 100 of them in 2025.

https://writesbright.substack.com/p...risy?r=q37nz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Yep, how dare the BBC summarise a speech. They should publish stories about non existing families not being able to go to private schools, or interview someone without checking they got the correct person by that name.

 

[secretsqirrel]

And it's so tiresome how they admit mistakes and publish corrections.

At least the Telegraph puts up a fight about issuing corrections... over 100 of them in 2025.

https://writesbright.substack.com/p...risy?r=q37nz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Ha… as with everything Telegraph just read the headline don’t bother with the content

 

[AuroraSaab]

The particular canard you are responding to has already been shot down by BBC reporters, as already posted further up in this thread. That will not stop people trying to keep flogging it, though it is an ex canard.

Like who? The reporter on the flagship news programme Newsnight who was likely able to operate without the interference others faced?
BBC employees who feel obliged to defend their employer? Exemplary reporting by one show doing its job properly doesn't excuse failings elsewhere.

Her co-reporter on the Tavistock, Hannah Barnes, considers that there is a problem:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2025/11/the-bbc-is-worth-fighting-for

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...er-correspondent-women-rights-newsreader.html

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...t-by-seasoned-people-within-bbc/40979482.html

It wouldn't really matter how many examples of imbalance there were, it would never be enough to make it an issue for some people.

 

[matticus]

So basically women can't complain about BBC coverage of women's rights issues because if they do that might associate them with other parties (that you disapprove of) who are complaining about other different stuff?
That doesn't sound fair at all.

You will find yourself writing a lot of stupid statements like that, if you insist on conflating unrelated issues and views.

Carry on if it makes you feel better, I shan't be stopping you.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

My impression is you think the BBC shouldn't be held to higher standards than other outlets, despite being public funded and having a unique historical position

I have seen this argument being made a lot this week. I find it quite a troubling one as it implies that other news/media outlets, particularly commercial ones, should be allowed to operate with lower standards.

Newspapers like the Telegraph have had to issue over 100 corrections already this year for repeatedly printing false or misleading information.

This is a massive part of the problem, it is almost baked in that we accept misinformation or innacuracy from a number of mainstream outlets.

All of them should be held exactly to the same standards, public funding should make no difference to this. The fact that the BBC is held to a higher account is also being used deliberately as a stick to beat them with by the right wing media.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The fact that the BBC is held to a higher account is also being used deliberately as a stick to beat them with by the right wing media.

Of course it is. That doesn't automatically mean they aren't at fault or that we shouldn't have the highest expectations of a publicly funded service. Maybe the BBC could stop giving them an open goal.